What Defines Art?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Cave Man
 
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 03:36 am
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
The question is good, and the answer is subject. Some subjects have more meaning. Now look; I have seen a room full of impressionistic paintings of hay stacks looking like muffins, and the question comes to mind, of, in what sense are they art? You have to understand the circumstances. First, photography was coming into its own, though without color, and always with direct light upon it. If the artist chose a common enough subject in the hay stacks, that was light, shadow, and color that was the subject. Art is always the same, but no one wants the same from art. Rather, a part of the challenge is to present the art in a new fashion, but also, as always to find meaningful subjects for art. That artist who sees as meaningful what all people see as meaningful has his task half done. Then it becomes only a question execution, or skill, or ability.


Fido i was looking thru all the texts in this forum to understand what you mean by art is subject and i figured this texte is one of the best.
To make sure im understading right. I need to make sure of some things i think your talking of somthing ive already thought of.
The truth is somthing that never changes. The only way you can comunicate with somone is by sharing the same truth. The truth would be somthing objectefly definbal that niether of the people can percieve.
A way to put the truth would be:
For two blinde men that have never seen 3D things in theire entire life.
The 3D things are the truth. when a blinde man makes art in his words he tries to explain the 3D things its the best way to give meaning to what he ses. 3Dness of things reunites all things to a blinde man. We cannot percief the truth in the same way we percief everything els sins we cant doubt of the truth.
But if im not mistaken there is a degree to art, but theire is a condition too.The persone that expreses it it must think its the absolute truth (she thinks its the abolute truth because it means the absolute truth fo her). If that condition is fulfild the degree of the qualetie of art is sort of how smart the persone is once somone made art thinking it's the absolute truth others might think its not the absolute truth. So only the smartest can determine what good and bad art is but the dumbest cant agree with the smartest sins theire absolute truth is less absolute then the truth of the smartest. All thought you could consider that for everyone the absolutness of the truth is the same.

All what i've just said seems to just be another way to say what tolstoy said .But just using a diffrent methode to say the same thing wich is the truth.
Fido dose my text or tolstoys match in anyway yours?
(The truth is what is diffrent to everything you see, hear, smell ,feel,taste.)
 
nameless
 
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 03:41 am
@Cave Man,
Cave Man;43306 wrote:

I read the whole text but i dont understand to well the last question.

#40. But how are we to define good and bad art with reference to its subject matter?

My take is that it matters not (to him) what is on the canvas or carved into stone. It is not the 'subject matter', that is necessarily considered in his definitions of good and bad art. It is, perhaps (as I cannot speak for him), the 'rendering' of the subject matter rather the subject matter itself. Not what is presented, but 'how'. That's my guess, anyway.

Quote:
For two blinde men that have never seen 3D things in theire entire life.
The 3D things are the truth.

'3d things' are not "the truth" for the blind men who have never seen them. Neither can they think or write about something that they have never perceived and therefore does not exist in their reality. "3d" is a relic of visual Perspective, of which, our blind friends have none.
 
Cave Man
 
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 06:48 am
@Lore,
Mabey be a blinde man can see the truth above sight but usaly sight is a revelation to him.
if i blinde man that never saw anything in his life, suddendly startet to see. All his previeuse life would seem to him, Like a conversation in wich he was missing the point.
ill explein: Its more complicated to walk in a streight line especialy if theire are small obsticals and stuff in your way when you are blinde. But when you see to walk in a streight line is so easy you dont have to think because you see the path. Blinde people dont know what a streight line is. But they know that walking in a streight line is the fastest method to reach somwhere. but they wouldent say it like that, they would rather say. Standing Moving my legs one after the other fowards of the same distance then puting them agains the ground to pull the rest of the body with them is the fastest way to travel from A to B(of course thats wrong, it would be hard to explein how it realy is but it looks alot like that). So suddendy when the blinde man starts to see he thinks all my life i was telling my self to folow that methode when actualy all i had to do was have faith in the truth, but know that the truth has been revealed to me its not the truth any more for i can doute it i must continue my quest for the truth, maybe this time i shall just have faith. And to do That will try to do art.

the truth is what is diffrent to everything that you see,hear,smell,taste,feel. For a blinde man that has never seen. THe truth is actualy everything diffrent to what he hears, smell, taste and feels. So part of the truth for a blinde man is sight.

Its like if you know the word "yes" exists but you dont know the word "no" exists. ALL your life you only hear and say "yes". When somone dosent say "yes" its like another dimention. You dont realy hear "no's" you just hear the "yes's". One day you have a revelation for some reason you hear "no". Theire you tell your self ofcourse "NO" is the oposite to "yes" i should have known. Its only when you say "no" and "yes" that "yes" has a meaning, you just dont realise that the meaning to yes together with "no" only exist because somthing els exists. "yes" always had a meaning for you before and that meaninng only existed because you dident know "NO" existed. Now you know "No" exists, No isent the truth any more but it was before you descorverded it because theire was no possibility of douting it before
Now art is the thing that gives that faith to people. The faith in the truth.
Faith means to have no doute in the doutable
 
TaraD
 
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 09:45 am
@Cave Man,
Everyone wants to understand art. Why not try to understand the song of a bird? why does one love the night,flowers,everything around one without trying to understand them? But in the case of a painting,people have to understand. - Pablo Picasso
 
Catchabula
 
Reply Mon 19 Jan, 2009 04:47 pm
@TaraD,
This is a beautiful and gentle thought, Tara. Somewhere in the Archives I found the following text. I now dare to publish it here.

"What I wanted to say is this. We all are blind and deaf somehow and the first condition for hearing and seeing is listening and looking. We must listen to many tales and even to different versions of each tale, but adults often listen too much to tales and not enough to the world. Tales are always deceptions but some may be more deceptive than others, while the world may be vast and complex but at least never lies to us, as tales inevitably do. Science is just one of these tales, and the deepest motive for science may be our need to find some sense in a vast and seemingly senseless world, by just putting it there. And so does poetry and art in general, and the tales of Milton and Shakespeare are definitely equalling those of Newton and Einstein. But tales are just tales and made of words, while the world is talking to us without words, forcing us to live in the presence of an eternal riddle. What do the birds say to us and the flowers? Ask any child and she will tell you, and how beautiful that tale is! Some claim that the riddle of the universe is its own solution. I think I'll keep that one for my deathbed..."

Relevance? Doubtful. But I cried while I wrote this...
 
MJA
 
Reply Mon 19 Jan, 2009 05:31 pm
@Catchabula,
If you wish to know the truth study nature. Michelangelo

But don't measure it, only be it.

=
MJA
 
Fido
 
Reply Mon 19 Jan, 2009 09:27 pm
@Lore,
Was it Duke Ellington, who said by way of answering the question: What is Jazz; That if you have to ask you will never know...

I know...I know the truth is what people who love each other agree on, and since they are the only ones who can agree, I'm with them...
 
Cave Man
 
Reply Tue 20 Jan, 2009 11:57 am
@Lore,
Have faith, have no doute in the doutebale ill gather all that in one word wich is assume. And its only by assuming the truth that you win.
You all talk about winning but Finding the truth is only about losing.
You must be modest even if you are alone in the best if you want to win.
(this might slightly contredict what ive already said but im slowly progressing philosophecly)
 
Fido
 
Reply Tue 20 Jan, 2009 01:58 pm
@Cave Man,
Not so, Cavey... Truth is life, what it has always been, whether found in art or science...What ever the question, the wrong answer means death..Life is the prize that goes to those who see clearly...
 
hammersklavier
 
Reply Tue 20 Jan, 2009 02:11 pm
@Lore,
I would say the ultimate definition of art is that it is quite independent of passion (although passion is required to make it); instead, it is the activity of reflecting on the human condition such that we can better understand the human condition in a manner thoroughly stylistic rather than rational in intent.
 
MuseEvolution
 
Reply Tue 20 Jan, 2009 02:29 pm
@Lore,
I believe one can create art dispassionately.

That, in some instances, may even be the point of some art.
 
TaraD
 
Reply Tue 20 Jan, 2009 05:55 pm
@MuseEvolution,
I would Agreed with that & I think anti-art movements prove this as well an example would be Marcel Duchamp piece the fountain http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41133000/jpg/_41133097_duchamp_pa.jpg
 
Fido
 
Reply Tue 20 Jan, 2009 09:06 pm
@Lore,
What is true of all art is a compelling subject...The artist forms a conception of that subject, and tries to communicate that subject, or at a minimum, the experience of it to the public... The experience depends upon two variables: The skill of the artist, and the accuracy, by which I mean the truth of the conception to the reality... And it still has to be a compelling subject, or the best rendering will have no more meaning...
 
hammersklavier
 
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 08:07 am
@TaraD,
TaraD wrote:
I would Agreed with that & I think anti-art movements prove this as well an example would be Marcel Duchamp piece the fountain http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41133000/jpg/_41133097_duchamp_pa.jpg

...which also requires passion--the passion to create anti-art.
 
Ccalebb
 
Reply Wed 24 Feb, 2010 01:31 pm
@Lore,
I think art can be anything.
It's all in the eyes of the beholder.
You ask what is "good" and what is "bad"
Just as the quotations show, good and bad are opinionated.
Jackson Pollock, for example. Splattered paint.
It's still argued if his work should be considered art.
I believe it should. It may not be highly detailed, but I still think it is good.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2010 08:14 pm
@Fido,
Fido;17820 wrote:
Life is art, and the good life is fine art. Death is only life's version of nothing; nothing to do, nothing to say, no one to pay, and nothing to play. Ask them bones what's in theys heads, and nothings the answer becauses they's dead. We give death meaning from the haunted house of the living. Booo!


Well put, brother.

---------- Post added 02-25-2010 at 09:17 PM ----------

What is art? Generally, art is expression through sensation, especially through vision. Music is sometimes called art and this is fine, but distinctions are useful. Music through the ears. Painting through the eyes. It's because art is sensual that it can "say" things that saying can't say.
 
Gracee
 
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 01:14 pm
@Lore,
I've always thought that art is anything which inspires beauty...
Just anything you stop to look at and think, wow
That can be something natural, like a sunset, or the Mona Lisa, whatever, if it makes you stop and stare, and gives you those shivers down your spine, its art.

A little crude, but that's my personal opinion.

And then there's art as an institution. Here, its difficult to say. There's a very thin line which has become more and more blurred. To begin with, art was the only way of representing reality, it had a purpose. Then you get the camera and some big changes start to happen. Art doesn't need to represent reality anymore, you have pictures for that, it needs to serve some other purpose, maybe to make you think or feel, take Picasso and the cubists. Then you get Warhol et al, and art is suddenly about the celebrity - 'Everything the artist spits is art' - Duchamp.
And it just goes downhill from there...
In fact, as soon as art no longer had a purpose, it was a downhill slope to where we are today, nowadays who even knows what art is? We know only what we're told, and we're told it by people who accept anything they don't understand as art - both for fear of looking stupid and for the masses of money they're going to make.

You want to know what art is - well to be honest, its an institution, nothing more.
 
Fido
 
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 01:24 pm
@Gracee,
Gracee;134671 wrote:
I've always thought that art is anything which inspires beauty...
Just anything you stop to look at and think, wow
That can be something natural, like a sunset, or the Mona Lisa, whatever, if it makes you stop and stare, and gives you those shivers down your spine, its art.

A little crude, but that's my personal opinion.

And then there's art as an institution. Here, its difficult to say. There's a very thin line which has become more and more blurred. To begin with, art was the only way of representing reality, it had a purpose. Then you get the camera and some big changes start to happen. Art doesn't need to represent reality anymore, you have pictures for that, it needs to serve some other purpose, maybe to make you think or feel, take Picasso and the cubists. Then you get Warhol et al, and art is suddenly about the celebrity - 'Everything the artist spits is art' - Duchamp.
And it just goes downhill from there...
In fact, as soon as art no longer had a purpose, it was a downhill slope to where we are today, nowadays who even knows what art is? We know only what we're told, and we're told it by people who accept anything they don't understand as art - both for fear of looking stupid and for the masses of money they're going to make.

You want to know what art is - well to be honest, its an institution, nothing more.

Art is what people do, and not nature...In the middle ages philosophers reflected the thought that all useful activities were art... This has changed since people have become alienated from the means of production...If what you do resembles the work of slaves, it cannot be art, because slaves have technicallybecome beasts, and parts of nature..
 
Gracee
 
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 01:44 pm
@Fido,
Fido;134679 wrote:
Art is what people do, and not nature...In the middle ages philosophers reflected the thought that all useful activities were art... This has changed since people have become alienated from the means of production...If what you do resembles the work of slaves, it cannot be art, because slaves have technicallybecome beasts, and parts of nature..


Well I suppose your defining art as purely a human creation, i.e. as being created with the intention of inspiring beauty.
But humans are the only creatures capable of seeing beauty, they simply project the quality of being beautiful onto an image which does not possess that quality innately.

So surely, a sunset can be, and is, as beautiful as a human produced work of art, because what makes both of them beautiful is not the way in which they were created, but the fact that they are being viewed by someone who personally sees some beauty in them.
 
Fido
 
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 02:24 pm
@Gracee,
Gracee;134698 wrote:
Well I suppose your defining art as purely a human creation, i.e. as being created with the intention of inspiring beauty.
But humans are the only creatures capable of seeing beauty, they simply project the quality of being beautiful onto an image which does not possess that quality innately.

So surely, a sunset can be, and is, as beautiful as a human produced work of art, because what makes both of them beautiful is not the way in which they were created, but the fact that they are being viewed by someone who personally sees some beauty in them.

I don't see where beauty has much to do with it...If one picks what is a noble, or perhaps, a worthy subject, and art is subject, and it is not beautiful, but terrible, then beauty would hardly be a part of the art...
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/14/2020 at 08:31:47